[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Ltru] Re: Process for creating 4646bis Registry



At 15:31 06/09/18, Frank Ellermann wrote:
>Doug Ewell wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to gauge consensus myself, and we know how
>> dangerous it can be when individual members start doing that.
>
>That's editorial freedom, if we don't like the result we can
>disccuss it.

[co-chair hat on] Yes indeed.


>> We'd better decide this pivotal question soon.
>
>For the initial draft stick to your choice,

[co-chair hat on] Yes, please. It's easier to discuss
an actual draft (or potentially some data hanging off
an actual draft but verifiably so) than some proposals
in emails.

>> IMHO it would be more of an error if we "corrected" the case
>> of a previously registered tag; the whole point of keeping
>> redundant tags in the Registry is to preserve them in a
>> museum-like setting.
>
>The museum survives it if one yi-latn is fixed to yi-Latn. :-)

[co-chair hat off]
I agree with Frank here. Somebody had to be the first to come up
with the idea of using XML idrefs for cross-checking, and unfortunately,
it didn't happen before RFC 464x. And because case is officially and
completely irrelevant, I don't see a point in the 'museum' preserving it.
And for historians, http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-tags
is still online at the moment, and our mails serve as another
witness to that specific bit of language tag history.

Regards,   Martin.




#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp     


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru




Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.